» Articles » PMID: 27161718

PO-29 - Age-adjusted D-dimer Cutoff Level Increases the Number of Cancer Patients in Who Pulmonary Embolism Can Be Safely Excluded Without CT-PA Imaging: The ADJUST-PE Cancer Substudy

Overview
Journal Thromb Res
Date 2016 May 11
PMID 27161718
Citations 3
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Introduction: Patients with cancer frequently present with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE). The D-dimer test is less useful to rule out PE in cancer patients due to a lower specificity, whereas the safety of the combination of a clinical decision rule (CDR) and D-dimer test to rule out PE in these patients is unclear. In the general population, use of an age-adjusted cutoff for D-dimer in combination with a CDR has been shown to improve specificity in the diagnosis of PE.

Aim: We prospectively analysed the safety and efficacy of the age-adjusted D-dimer (defined as age×10 in patients >50 years) combined with CDR for the exclusion of PE in patients with cancer.

Materials And Methods: We conducted a multicenter multinational prospective management outcome study in 19 centers in Belgium, France, The Netherlands and Switzerland, the ADJUST-PE study, to validate an age-adjusted D-dimer cut-off in patients with suspected PE. The performance of the age-adjusted D-dimer cut-off and CDR was compared between patients with and without cancer. The primary outcome was the rate of adjudicated thromboembolic events during three-month follow-up.

Results: Of the 3,324 patients with suspected PE, 429 (12.9%) patients had cancer. Cancer patients were older and more often had surgery or immobilisation. The prevalence of PE was 108/429 (25.2%) in cancer patients and 522/2894 (18%) in patients without cancer, p<0.001. Among cancer patients with an unlikely CDR, 27/274 (9.9%) had a D-Dimer <500 μg/L as compared with 19.7% using the age-adjusted D-dimer cut-off; in patients without cancer, these rates were 30.1% and 41.9%, respectively. The percentage of cancer patients in whom PE could be excluded based on CDR and age-adjusted D-dimer doubled from 6.3% to 12.6%. None of these cancer patients had a venous thromboembolic event during three-month follow-up, thus the failure rate was 0.0% (95% CI 0.0-6.9%).

Conclusions: Compared with the usual cut-off, the age-adjusted D-dimer cut-off doubles the proportion of patients with cancer in whom PE can be safely excluded by CDR and D-dimer without need for CTPA imaging.

Citing Articles

The 3-level Wells score combined with D-dimer can accurately diagnose acute pulmonary embolism in hospitalized patients with acute exacerbation of COPD: A multicentre cohort study.

Jiao X, Zhang Y, Kuang T, Gong J, Yuan Y, Zhen G Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc. 2024; 55:101533.

PMID: 39624152 PMC: 11609479. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcha.2024.101533.


Risk factors and potential predictors of pulmonary embolism in cancer patients undergoing thoracic and abdominopelvic surgery: a case control study.

Li Y, Liu Z, Chen C, Li D, Peng H, Zhao P Thromb J. 2022; 20(1):80.

PMID: 36550497 PMC: 9783998. DOI: 10.1186/s12959-022-00442-7.


D-dimer value in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism-may it exclude only?.

Sikora-Skrabaka M, Skrabaka D, Ruggeri P, Caramori G, Skoczynski S, Barczyk A J Thorac Dis. 2019; 11(3):664-672.

PMID: 31019753 PMC: 6462691. DOI: 10.21037/jtd.2019.02.88.